METHODS: iPC clones were generated from two colorectal cancer (CRC) cell lines by retroviral transduction of the Yamanaka factors. The iPC clones obtained were characterized by morphology, expression of pluripotency markers and the ability to undergo in vitro tri-lineage differentiation. Genome-wide miRNA profiles of the iPC cells were obtained by microarray analysis and bioinformatics interrogation. Gene expression was done by real-time RT-PCR and immuno-staining; MET/EMT protein levels were determined by western blot analysis.
RESULTS: The CRC-iPC cells showed embryonic stem cell-like features and tri-lineage differentiation abilities. The spontaneously-differentiated post-iPC cells obtained were highly similar to the parental CRC cells. However, down-regulated pluripotency gene expression and failure to form teratoma indicated that the CRC-iPC cells had only attained partial pluripotency. The CRC-iPC cells shared similarities in the genome-wide miRNA expression profiles of both cancer and pluripotent embryonic stem cells. One hundred and two differentially-expressed miRNAs were identified in the CRC-iPC cells, which were predicted by bioinformatics analysis be closely involved in regulating cellular pluripotency and the expression of the MET/EMT genes, possibly via the phosphatidylinositol-3 kinases-protein kinase B (PI3K-Akt) and transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) signaling pathways. Irregular and inconsistent expression patterns of the EMT vimentin and Snai1 and MET E-cadherin and occludin proteins were observed in the four CRC-iPC clones analyzed, which suggested an epithelial/mesenchymal hybrid phenotype in the partially reprogrammed CRC cells. MET/EMT gene expression was also generally reversed on re-differentiation, also suggesting epigenetic regulation.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the elite model for cancer cell-reprogramming in which only a selected subset of cancer may be fully reprogrammed; partial cancer cell reprogramming may also elicit an epithelial-mesenchymal mixed phenotype, and highlight opportunities and challenges in cancer cell-reprogramming.
METHODS: EMA detection was performed by flow cytometry in monocytes and monoblasts. EMA expression was compared with other known markers of monocytic-macrophage lineage (CD11c, CD14 and intracellular CD68). Samples of purified monocytes were obtained from 20 healthy volunteers. Twenty-two cases of monocytic AML (M4 and M5) were studied and controls were selected from 20 cases of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) and 18 cases of non-monocytic AML (M0, M1, M2, M3, and M7).
RESULTS: EMA was shown to be expressed strongly on the surface of all purified monocytes. EMA expression was observed on blast cells in 18/22 (81.8%) cases of AML M4 and M5, but not in that of non-monocytic AML or ALL. In this study EMA monoclonal antibody has demonstrated a strong association (P<0.001) with all the other known markers of monocytic-macrophage lineage in acute leukaemia subtypes. EMA had also shown 100% specificity and 81.8% sensitivity in the diagnosis of AML M4 and M5.
CONCLUSIONS: The monoclonal antibody EMA (clone E29) is a useful marker in the classification of acute myeloid leukaemia and can be used as a supplementary analysis for the diagnosis of acute leukemia with monocytic involvement.